Americans listening to politicians, ignoring climate scientists

Public opinion about climate change in the U.S. has been riding a roller …

US public opinion about climate change has been riding a roller coaster over the past decade. After signs of growing acceptance and emphasis around 2006 and 2007, a precipitous decline brought us back to where we started, with fully a quarter of the public not even thinking that the planet has warmed up. It's not shocking that concerns about climate change would take a back seat to the economic recession, but that doesn't explain why some are skeptical that global warming is even real.

Since economic turmoil does not extend to past temperature measurements, it seems clear that public acceptance of the data depends at least partly on something other than the data itself. So the natural question is—what’s driving public opinion? Why the big shifts? The answer to that question may hold the key to the US' response to the changing climate.

A recent study published in Climatic Change evaluates the impact of several potential opinion drivers: extreme weather events, public access to scientific information, media coverage, advocacy efforts, and the influence of political leaders. These are compared to a compilation of 74 surveys performed by six different organizations. The polls took place between 2002 and 2010, and provide a total of 84,000 responses. The researchers used all the questions that asked respondents to rate their concern about climate change to calculate a "climate change threat index" that could be tracked through time.

For extreme weather events, the researchers used NOAA’s Climate Extremes Index, which includes things like unusually high temperatures and precipitation events, as well as severe droughts. To evaluate public access to scientific information, they tracked the number of climate change papers published in Science, major assessments like the 2007 IPCC report, and climate change articles published in popular science magazines.

Similarly, media coverage was tracked with a simple count of stories appearing on broadcast evening news shows and in several leading periodicals. Advocacy was measured using a number of "major environmental" and "conservative magazines." In addition, they captured the influence of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (a favorite target of climate contrarians) using the number of times it was mentioned in the New York Times.

Finally, they counted up congressional press releases, hearings, and votes on bills related to climate change. For comparison, they also looked at the influence of unemployment, GDP, oil prices, and the number of deaths associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The researchers compared each time series to their climate change threat index. They found no statistically significant correlation with extreme weather events, papers in Science (hardly shocking—when was the last time you found Science in the waiting room at the dentist's?), or oil prices. There was a minor correlation with major scientific assessments.

While articles in popular science magazines and advocacy efforts (especially An Inconvenient Truth) appeared to have an effect, the impact of news media coverage came about because it is transmitting statements from political leaders, what the researchers refer to as "elite cues." That’s where the meat of this story lies. Those elite cues were the most significant driver of public opinion, followed by economic factors.

The researchers note that around the time when public acceptance of climate change reached its peak, political bipartisanship on the subject also hit a high point. Republican Senator and (then) presidential candidate John McCain was pushing for climate legislation, and current presidential candidate Newt Gingrich filmed a commercial together with an unlikely partner—Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi—urging action.

And then things changed. The economy went pear-shaped and Republican rhetoric shifted into attack mode on climate science. Gingrich’s commercial with Pelosi offers one example—opposing candidates in the presidential race have used its mere existence as a weapon against him, and Gingrich has tried to distance himself, calling it "the dumbest thing I've done in the last four years."

Flipping this around, it suggests that serious action on climate change depends on a healthy economy and bipartisan agreement among politicians. If that leaves you pondering a future connection between global warming legislation and icy conditions in hell, the cooperation in 2007 indicates it isn’t totally unthinkable.

In addition, recent polling has shown that acceptance of climate change is, once again, climbing among those who identify as moderate Republicans. It’s unclear how to interpret that in terms of this study’s conclusions. Is economic optimism having an impact, have Republican presidential candidates alienated moderates in the party, or is something totally different responsible?

While it’s certainly not surprising, it’s discouraging to see how little effect scientific outreach efforts and reports have had on public opinion. Even on simple questions like "Is there solid evidence that the Earth has warmed?"—it's politicians that are driving public opinion, not scientists or the data they produce.

A big part of the problem is that mainstream coverage of climate science is severely lacking. The reason is simple: most media conglomerates are owned by large corporations, and their ad revenue comes from them. So giving honest coverage to climate science would be akin to committing suicide.

It's not shocking that concerns about climate change would take a back seat to the economic recession, but that doesn't explain why some are skeptical that global warming is even real primarily human driven rather than driven by nature.

Come on, let's just cut to the heart of the argument, not dance around it.

A big part of the problem is that mainstream coverage of climate science is severely lacking. The reason is simple: most media conglomerates are owned by large corporations, and their ad revenue comes from them. So giving honest coverage to climate science would be akin to committing suicide.

Media outlets have done and continue to do immeasurable harm to legiimate scientific interests by presenting them as "half" of a debate or discussion on a given subject, rather than allowing them to weigh in as the factual juggernauts that they are on matters that should be largely undisputed. You see this "teach the controversey" or half-assed "free speech in science" movements in the anti-vaccination movements, in the evolution debates, and of course in climate change, even as climate change skeptics more and more change their tune to match the facts.

*shrugs* Who cares anymore. I'm finally of the opinion if this world goes to sheet I'll at least have we told you so. I've stopped caring since its obvious the average American couldn't give less of a crap as well.

Wikipedia currently reports, "Since the early 20th century, Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two thirds of the increase occurring since 1980."

While those of us who read Ars recognize the significance of this, to "The Man In The Street", that temperature increase is insignificant. They don't look at it in terms of trends or the total increase in energy in the atmosphere needed to register that kind of difference. They evaluate it in terms they understand. They don't mind if the hottest temperature in the summer changes from 110F to 111.4F. They'll just turn up the A/C. Even three degrees Fahrenheit wouldn't bother them, especially over the course of 30 years. They see the connection between that tiny increase and dramatic weather changes as ill-supported. They also make the mistake of thinking that record lows and epic winter storms in some areas invalidate the assertion that the global temperature has increased.

It is a mistake to argue for sustainable policies based on the threat of Global Warming. The best argument for sustainable policies is that they are by definition more efficient and therefore will necessarily be of greater value over time. The better we get at minimizing or capturing waste materials and energy from our various processes, the more value we get out of those processes.

1) People, in general are going to listen to whoever is loudest and more certain sounding. How the two groups would present the same info:Scientist: "Our information indicates that X is likely...."Politician: "I am absolutely certain that..."

2) People with money to spare care about the environment. Kind of sad, but for many, choosing between protecting the environment and protecting their families finances is an easy choice. In that way, it's very similar to giving to religious organizations or other charities.

Americans get their science from media. Media reports are usually op eds, filled with whiz bang promises of a better future, or doom and gloom, or attacks on said science, depending on where one gets their news from.

No one other than scientists read the facts from the original paper or in scientific journals. It is all available on the Internet. But of course it is so much easier to just stay ignorant.

It is a mistake to argue for sustainable policies based on the threat of Global Warming.

If it's a mistake to argue for proper measures by citing exactly what will happen if those measures aren't taken, then people deserve to die. If people can't make decisions at least someone based on reality, then the human race is well and truly fucked.

It's not shocking that concerns about climate change would take a back seat to the economic recession, but that doesn't explain why some are skeptical that global warming is even real primarily human driven rather than driven by nature.

Come on, let's just cut to the heart of the argument, not dance around it.

If that had been the polling question I was referring to, I would have written it that way.

The comments about the media being at fault for poor climate change coverage are correct, but not for the reasons you think. Half of the problem (and a major point of attack in public discusssion) is due to decades of media promotion of half-assed dire 'predictions' of doom that haven't been realized. The other half is the political hijacking of the science by ideological partisans who see every solution as an opportunity for expanding their ideology and by those partisan's adversaries who see every proposed solution as an attack on their way of life.When you combine those two, you get the quasi-conspiracy theory thinking you see from people, e.g., climate scientists promote climate change for grant money, etc.You can scream. 'but the science!' all day, and it won't help a bit until people start working from within with an eye toward preserving what at least half of the people in this country view as a valid lifestyle.Unless of course, you really are of the autocratic mindset, in which case you will happily consider that half dimwitted 'sheep' that don't know what's good for them.

These studies are important because those who are deeply involved in this issue need to understand the workings of the public mind. Maybe this information can be used for future public outreach on the issue. I would hate for the moral of this story to be that you have to speak like a politician to convince the public of anything, but that may be it.

It is a mistake to argue for sustainable policies based on the threat of Global Warming.

If it's a mistake to argue for proper measures by citing exactly what will happen if those measures aren't taken, then people deserve to die. If people can't make decisions at least someone based on reality, then the human race is well and truly fucked.

His strategy is also based on reality. It's better to drive change by showing what you will gain then by some vague threat that's complicated to explain. What he says sounds like it could work IMHO, if we reduce our wastes and use less energy business can increase its bottom line... it feeds right into our current market economy.

Is it really any surprise that politicians, whose job is as much one of leadership as it is of representation, would be better at swaying public opinion than scientists, whose job in no way depends on being able to communicate with the public?

This is neither shocking nor surprising. It's just the natural order of things. The only way to make sure scientific thought gets represented in politics and accepted by the general public is by working constantly to make it happen. This is where education and politics collide - there's no easy way to manage that.

I wish to thank the Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act for the opportunity to present my views on the issue of climate change – or as it was once referred to: global warming. Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

And:

Where do we go from here?

Given that this has become a quasi-religious issue, it is hard to tell. However, my personal hope is that we will return to normative science, and try to understand how the climate actually behaves. Our present approach of dealing with climate as completely specified by a single number, globally averaged surface temperature anomaly, that is forced by another single number, atmospheric CO2 levels, for example, clearly limits real understanding; so does the replacement of theory by model simulation. In point of fact, there has been progress along these lines and none of it demonstrates a prominent role for CO2. It has been possible to account for the cycle of ice ages simply with orbital variations (as was thought to be the case before global warming mania); tests of sensitivity independent of the assumption that warming is due to CO2 (a circular assumption) show sensitivities lower than models show; the resolution of the early faint sun paradox which could not be resolved by greenhouse gases, is readily resolved by clouds acting as negative feedbacks.

And finally from Eisenhower's farewell address (the one that lefties love for its coining of the phrase "military-industrial complex").:Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Climate changes. That's what it does. When you talk about a CARBON CREDIT trading scheme, ie an economic bubble based on the non-delivery of an intangible, I call bullsh1t.

I'd rather trade tulip bulbs, you know what I mean? The notion of CARBON CREDITS is a scam of major proportions. Economic bubbles created and manipulated by our beloved global banking elite are not healthy for children or other living things -- only bankers.

I'm gonna quote myself from the last climate thread, just for perspective:

MoonShark wrote:

...if you don't accept the scientific consensus, you owe an explanation for just how the national academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, Turkey, the US, and the United Kingdom all agree not just on the reality of AGW, but that it requires "prompt action".

To my knowledge, the majority of citizens in those nations agree with their scientists. The exception, the "contrarians", are a vast minority, composed of US (and some UK) conservatives (Republicans and libertarians usually). The whole world is letting the stubborn denial of noisy minority hold up the entire transition away from fossil fuels and into renewable energy sources.

I suggest everyone reading this discussion check out The Skeptic's Case by David Evans. Mr. Confusion and others will no doubt have a tendency to attack the messenger, but how about addressing the content of the article instead? It presents a clear exposition of the skeptic's case, without the red herrings the climate alarmists like to throw about.

Note that if the reduced amplification discussed in that article is correct, as seems likely, there may indeed be quite an effect from the Grand Solar Minimum which will be in effect until at least 2040. It also jibes nicely with the lack of warming despite significantly increasing atmospheric CO2 over the last 14 years.

As that article also points out, CO2 output will continue at increasing levels at least through 2050, so there will be direct, conclusive empirical evidence one way or the other before then. As I've said many times before here, if you want to do the most you can to reduce CO2 emissions, advocate nuclear power. If CO2 is in fact a problem, the risks from nuclear power are nothing by comparison, especially if new reactor designs, or thorium reactors, are used.

Science is out there, but it is twisted to whatever means politicians and/or organizations want it to be.Give me an unbiased and independent, non-commercially funded research and then I know I can trust the numbers.

What really causes the so-called "scientists" who subscribe to the anthropogenic GW theory to lose much of their credibility is their continued blind allegiance to the idea that all climate scientists agree with them. The entire issue of anthropogenic GW is eminently debatable, as recently pointed out here, where at least sixteen actual, verified scientists state their case (reportedly, many more were a bit incensed that they had not been asked to sign on, as well.) I had thought Ars might be even-handed enough to publicize the above linked story--but I was not surprised when Ars' GW promoters buried their heads in the sand when most everyone else was reading it.

The sad part of it is that until pro-GW scientists realize that fantasizing that their scientific colleagues who disagree with them don't exist is not helping their case, the public is likely only to get more jaded by the "Inconvenient Truthers" to the point where everything they say will be soundly ridiculed as a matter of course.

Americans are too easily misguided by false information and are generally too lazy to confirm fact from fiction. It certainly doesn't help the situation when faith-blinded politicians call to abolish the public education system.

The whole world is letting the stubborn denial of noisy minority hold up the entire transition away from fossil fuels and into renewable energy sources.

Except the very same people who are now claiming that CO2 is the worst evil EVER tend to have been the same people who were arguing strongly against nuclear energy for the past 30 years, which is why we have no new nuclear plants, and are extending old designs well beyond their service life. Oh, and don't forget Germany, who is moving away from nuclear power, period, in favor of coal.

Renewables are well and good, but either we get nuclear base load plants, or they'll be a "nice touch" while the bulk of the power is still generated with carbon based fuels.

Or we just give up on the constantly improving way of life, kill off 95% of the planet, and go back to sustenance farming at an iron age level. Which, honestly, seems like the goal of a bunch of the environmentalist types.

I'd rather run the slight risk of nuclear power. The new designs are much better suited to dealing with the stuff that has caused issues in the past 50 years. Almost like we've learned from the mistakes made & have worked to mitigate the circumstances that led to them!

Science is out there, but it is twisted to whatever means politicians and/or organizations want it to be.Give me an unbiased and independent, non-commercially funded research and then I know I can trust the numbers.

Don't hold your breath on that. This issue has been politicized beyond hope by both sides of the aisle on this one.

The entire issue of anthropogenic GW is eminently debatable, as recently pointed out here, where at least sixteen actual, verified scientists state their case

Scientist organize themselves. The biggest groups are usually national academies, royal societies, research councils, and such. These few names above aren't even a blip on the radar compared to how many scientists those national-level orgs represent.

If you insist on comparing numbers of scientists, multiple surveys suggest that the "skeptics" comprise only around 2-5%.